ORDER :

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pursuant to the charge sheet in STC.No.1393 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai and quash the same.

“Sometimes obvious things become imperceptible through legal brain thought proceedings.”

Such situation raised by the petitioner in this case at the cost of violence to the meaning of Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter called as “the DV Act”) by raising the following question :

“Whether the non-payment of maintenance amount is a breach of protection order for which the law enforcing authority has jurisdiction to register the Criminal case under Section 31 of the Act?”

2. The husband of the second respondent filed this quash petition to quash the S.T.C.No.1393 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, which emanated from the FIR in Crime No.228 of 2011 registered for the offence under Section 31 of the DV Act.

3. On 21.08.1989, the petitioner married one Kanikaimarry, who is the second respondent herein and out of marriage, they are blessed with two female children. In their matrimonial life, some dispute arose and hence, the second respondent filed a petition under Sections 18 and 19 of the DV Act in Crl.M.P.No.2230 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, claiming maintenance and protection. After considering the submission of the petitioner as well as the respondent/wife, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on 21.04.2011, passed an order of granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the second respondent and Rs.5,000/- to their children and also passed an order to give protection to the respondent/wife.

4. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.25 of 2011 and the same was partly allowed by judgment dated 06.02.2013 and the maintenance awarded to the wife was set aside and in respect of Rs.5,000/- to their children was confirmed. Thereafter, the second respondent preferred a complaint under Section 31 of the DV Act stating that the petitioner did not pay the monthly maintenance amount and the said complaint was forwarded to the first respondent police and on receipt of the same, the first respondent police registered FIR in Crime No.228 of 2011. On the basis of FIR, investigation conducted and final report was also filed. The same was taken on file in STC.No.1393 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai. After service of summons, the petitioner appeared and filed the present petition to quash the said proceedings.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Court below directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- to the children and the same has to be recovered through the execution of award either by way of 'distraint warrant' or 'distress warrant' procedure as contemplated under Sections 125 or 128 Cr.P.C, respectively.

6. Non-compliance of the monthly maintenance order not amount to breach of protection order and hence the respondent has no jurisdiction to register the criminal case in Crime No.228 of 2011 and hence, the final report filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, is not valid one and the learned Judicial Magistrate has erroneously taken cognizance under Section 31 of the DV Act and hence, he seeks for quashment of the impugned STC proceedings. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in (2022) 7 KHC 577 in the case of Suneesh Vs. State of Kerala and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

“13. Indubitably the Latin expression 'ejusdem generis' which means “of the same kind or nature” is a principle of construction, meaning thereby when general words in a statutory text are flanked by restricted words, the meaning of the general words are to be restricted by implication with the meaning of restricted words. This is a